Mr. Buchanan. Although the Constitution, as it came
from the hands of its framers, gave to Congress no power
to touch the right of petition, yet some of the states to
whom it was submitted for ratification, apprehending that
the time might arrive when Congress would be disposed
to act like the British Parliament, (in Charles II.'s time,)
expressly withdrew the subject from our control. Not satisfied
with the fact, that no power over it had been granted
by the Constitution, they determined to prohibit us, in express
terms, from ever exercising such a power.

The proposition [the right of petition] is almost too
plain for argument, that, if the people have a constitutional
right to petition, a corresponding duty is imposed
upon us to receive their petitions. From the very nature of
things, rights and duties are reciprocal. The human mind
cannot conceive of the one without the other. They are
relative terms. If the people have a right to command, it
is the duty of their servants to obey. If I have a right to a
sum of money, it is the duty of my debtor to pay it to me.
If the people have a right to petition their representatives,
it is our duty to receive their petition.

This question was solemnly determined by the Senate
more than thirty years ago. Neither before nor since that
time, so far as I can learn, has the general right of petition
ever been called in question; until the motion now under
consideration was made by the senator from South Carolina.

Mr. King, (of Georgia.) Congress, under this article,
[the first amendment] can pass no law to "abridge" the
right of the people to petition the government. A modern
commentator on the Constitution, of some note and much
ability, in noticing this part of the article, dismissed it with
the remark, that it was totally unnecessary. This is obvious
to every one who will consider for a moment the relation
between a free people and the government of their own
choice. The privilege belonged (Mr. K. said) to the form
of government--was united with it, and inseparable from
it. It as clearly belonged to the people, on the formation
of the government, as did the right to use the English language
without any constitutional provision for that purpose;
and, said Mr. K., if gentlemen will only look at the
Constitution, and not evade it, they will see that the right
was not ACQUIRED by the Constitution, but only SECURED
by it. The right, as a preëxisting one, was expressly recognized
by the language of the Constitution itself. What
was the language applicable to the question before the
Senate? It prevented Congress from passing any law
"abridging the right of the people to petition," &c.

The right belonged to the people as inseparably incident
to their form of government; was acknowledged to exist
by the language of the Constitution; and was guardedly
secured by the provisions of that instrument.

Mr. Calhoun. The first amended article of the Constitution,
which provides that Congress shall pass no law to
prevent the people from peaceably assembling and petitioning
for a redress of grievances, was clearly intended to
prescribe the limits within which the right might be exercised.
It is not pretended that to refuse to receive petitions,
touches, in the slightest degree, on these limits. To suppose
that the framers of the Constitution--no, not the framers,
but those jealous patriots who were not satisfied with
that instrument as it came from the hands of the framers,
and who proposed this very provision to guard what they
considered a sacred right--performed their task so bunglingly
as to omit any essential guard, would be to do great
injustice to the memory of those stern and sagacious men.

If the Constitution makes it our duty to receive, we
should have no discretion left to reject, as the motion presupposes.
Our rules of proceeding must accord with the
Constitution. Thus, in the case of revenue bills, which, by
the Constitution, must originate in the other house, it
would be out of order to introduce them here; and it has
accordingly been so decided. For like reasons, if we are
bound to receive petitions, the present motion would be
out of order; and, if such should be your opinion, it is
your duty, as the presiding officer, to call me to order, and
to arrest all further discussion on the question of reception.

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment I (Petition and Assembly), Document 22http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_assemblys22.htmlThe University of Chicago Press

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.